Chapter 7 Improving Student Academic Achievement

7 Chapter 7 Improving Student Academic Achievement Background A component of the Nevada Education Reform Act of 1997 (NERA) provided for the first time specific State funding to assist students in low-performing schools. Although the statewide proficiency program has, for several decades, required districts to provide low-performing students with remedial assistance, the expectation was that needed funding was provided through the State guarantee for per-pupil funding and was not specifically allocated as a separate appropriation. The provisions of the NERA provided a method to identify schools needing improvement, a source of State funding to assist them, the identification of effective remedial programs, technical assistance for effective implementation of remedial programs, and continued remedial program funding for those schools with continuing problems. With the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the standards movement begun by the NERA developed even further. The NCLB sets deadlines for states to expand the scope and frequency of testing, revamp accountability systems, and guarantee that every classroom is staffed by a teacher qualified to teach in his or her subject area. In addition, it requires states to make demonstrable progress from year to year in raising the percentage of students who are proficient in reading and math, and in narrowing the test-score gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. During the 2003 Legislative Session, the NCLB was codified in State statutes through Senate Bill 1 (Chapter 1, Statutes of Nevada, 19th Special Session). Senate Bill 1 adopted the federal mandate that each school demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), test students yearly in math and English, hire highly qualified teachers, and develop accountability reports that show the progress of identified subpopulations of students. In addition, each school in Nevada was charged with developing an improvement plan to identify student needs and instructional improvements, based on school-specific data from the State s Criterion-Referenced Test (CRT). Schools that do not make AYP receive technical assistance and qualify for remediation funding. Schools that continue to fail to make AYP may be subject to greater district and State oversight, as well as sanctions. Elsewhere in this section, the reader will find charts that explain the progression of NCLB consequences. Today, the federal government is reviewing the components of the NCLB and making recommendations for the reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). A Blueprint for Reform has been issued by the federal government to build upon reforms made in the NCLB. The reauthorization is anticipated to be approved in the 2011-2013 Biennium. The Blueprint for Reform is built around four areas: 115

Blueprint for Reform (The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) 1. Improving teacher and principal effectiveness to ensure that every classroom has a great teacher and every school has a great leader; 2. Providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their children s schools, and to educators to help them improve their students learning; 3. Implementing college- and career-ready standards and developing improved assessments aligned with those standards; and 4. Improving student learning and achievement in America s lowestperforming schools by providing intensive support and effective interventions. With the blending of the accountability frameworks of the NERA, the NCLB, and the upcoming reauthorization of the ESEA, remediation and school improvement funding has become more important, as schools and districts try to assist each student in meeting the standards. The following describes federal and State funding made available specifically to schools and school districts for remediation purposes. Federal Title I Funds: Formula Based Title I programs provide federal assistance to improve instructional programs for educationally disadvantaged students. The programs are directed toward schools with a high concentration of low-income families or schools with educationally disadvantaged students such as English Language Learners. Each school district in Nevada receives a Title I allocation based upon the number of students at poverty level in the district. Upon receipt of the allocation, the district is required to pay all Title I services that are provided throughout the district, including Title I teachers salaries. Once all district-wide Title I services have been paid, school allocations are made based upon the number of students at poverty level in each school. The data utilized in ranking the schools is contained in the Annual Poverty Count Report (APCR). The Title I appropriation is a per-pupil amount, which is the same for all schools. Once all Title I funds have been exhausted, the remaining schools continue to be Title I eligible, but receive no funding for that year. Each year, all Title I schools are re-ranked according to the APCR and appropriations are made as noted above. Federal Title I Funds: Competitive Funding (Race to the Top Program) The Race to the Top (RTTT) Program is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The RTTT Program was proposed by the federal government as a competitive grant program to award approximately $4.35 billion to states to encourage and reward those states that are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform, 116

implementing ambitious plans in education reform areas, and achieving significant improvement in student outcomes. The United States Department of Education developed nonbinding budget ranges which placed each state into one of five categories with an estimated range of money that such a state may be eligible to receive if it is awarded a competitive grant. The State of Nevada was placed in Category 4, which had a budget range of $60 million to $175 million. Phase I applications for RTTT funding were due on January 19, 2010. Forty states applied for funding, as did the District of Columbia; the State of Nevada did not apply for funding in Phase I. The Phase I winners were announced on March 29, 2010. The states of Delaware and Tennessee were named as the only winners of the first round of the RTTT; Delaware will receive $100 million and Tennessee will receive $500 million. Phase II applications were due on June 1, 2010. Thirty-five states (including the State of Nevada) applied for funding, as did the District of Columbia. The Phase II winners were announced August 24, 2010 District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Although the State of Nevada was not awarded RTTT federal funds, it will continue to strive toward meeting the components outlined in its application for funds. Note: Additional information concerning the federal RTTT program is contained in Chapter 3 Nevada Plan for School Finance and Education Revenues and Expenditures. State Remediation Funds for Low-Performing Schools The NERA of 1997 first provided remediation funds for low-performing schools in 1998. This program has been continued in some form each biennium since. Until the 2005-2007 Biennium these funds were used to purchase programs of remedial study that have proven to be successful in improving the academic achievement of pupils in the subject areas of reading, writing, mathematics, and science. Schools selected such programs from Nevada s List of Effective Remedial Programs, published annually. As the standards movement in Nevada has evolved, so has the method of qualifying for remedial funding. During Fiscal Year 1997-1998, schools that were designated as demonstrating need for improvement were eligible for funding (designations were made when more than 40 percent of the pupils enrolled in a school score in the bottom quarter in all four subject areas tested on the State-required norm-referenced test [NRT]). During the 1999 Legislative Session, funding was expanded to include certain schools that were designated as having adequate achievement but were still determined to be in need of assistance, as follows: (1) a school that did not receive a designation because the school had too few pupils enrolled in a grade level that is tested, but the test scores of the pupils indicate that the school would have received a designation as demonstrating need for improvement; (2) a school that has more than 40 percent of the pupils enrolled in the school with an average 117

score in the bottom quarter in three of four subjects tested; and (3) a school that was designated as demonstrating need for improvement in the immediately preceding school year (SY). During the 2001 Legislative Session, funding was expanded again to include a school that had more than 40 percent of the pupils enrolled in the school with an average score in the bottom quarter in one or more of four subjects tested. With the passage of S.B. 1 of the 19th Special Session in 2003, the qualifications for remediation funding were again changed. Since the NCLB introduced the concept of AYP, all schools that failed to make AYP were considered eligible, along with the schools in which 40 percent of the pupils enrolled in a school scored in the bottom quarter in all four subject areas tested on the State-required NRT. In an effort to close the achievement gap across the State, the 2005 Legislature approved funding of $100 million over the 2005-2007 Biennium to establish the School Remediation Trust Fund. Unexpended funding in the account does not revert at the end of the year and is carried forward to the following year. Components of the School Remediation Trust Fund include the Account for Programs for Innovation and the Prevention of Remediation, funding for full-day kindergarten, and funding for the Program of Empowerment Schools. Note: Although the 2007 Legislature approved $165.79 million to continue the programs included in the School Remediation Trust Fund, most of the funding was returned to the State due to budget reductions. For the 2009-20011 Biennium, the Governor recommended and the 2009 Legislature approved the suspension of funding for all of the programs included in the School Remediation Trust Fund, except to continue the full-day kindergarten program in certain schools. We learn simply by the exposure of living. Much that passes for education is not education at all but ritual. The fact is that we are being educated when we know it least. David P. Gardner 118

Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and State Compliance Nevada s Compliance With the Federal NCLB All Schools All Schools In Need of Improvement (INOI) Title I Schools INOI Only Non-Title I Schools INOI Only AYP Designation Consequences for Low Performance: School Choice Supplemental Services Technical Assistance School Support Team* Corrective Action Required Corrective Action Option Restructuring Required Restructuring Optional Educational Improvement Process: Educational Personnel: State Improvement Plan District Improvement Plan School Improvement Plan Highly Qualified Teachers Qualified Paraprofessionals Licensed Middle School Teachers SAIN (System of Accountability Information for Nevada): School Accountability Reports District Accountability Reports State Accountability Report *Senate Bill 389 (Chapter 422, Statutes of Nevada 2009) eliminates the requirement to establish a school support team for schools that have been designated as demonstrating need for improvement for three consecutive years. The measure authorizes the Department of Education (DOE) to establish a school support team only for those schools where it is deemed necessary. In order to determine the need for a school support team, the measure requires the school district or governing body of a charter school to conduct a comprehensive audit for an eligible school, including an audit of the curriculum implemented at the school. The audit of the curriculum, at a minimum, must include a review of the methods of instruction and the assessments administered by the school. Source: Chapter 385 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). 119

Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and State Compliance (continued) Consequences of Failure to Make Adequate Yearly Progress Year of AYP Failure: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 NCLB (applies to Title I schools) (Watch List) State remediation funds (1st Year Needs Improvement) State remediation funds (2nd Year Needs Improvement) State remediation funds (3rd Year Needs Improvement) State remediation funds (4th Year Needs Improvement) State remediation funds School choice School choice School choice School choice Supplemental services Supplemental services Supplemental services LEA 1 corrective action 2 LEA corrective action Alternative governance 3 Senate Bill 1 (applies to all schools) State remediation funds State remediation funds State remediation funds State remediation funds State remediation funds State supplemental services State supplemental services State supplemental services State supplemental services School Support Team 4 School Support Team Support team may recommend corrective action to SEA 5 Support team may recommend corrective action to SEA SEA may take corrective action 1 Local Educational Agency (LEA). In Nevada, LEAs are primarily school districts. 2 Corrective action LEAs may take under NCLB includes the following: replacing school staff, instituting a new curriculum, decreasing management authority, appointing an outside expert advisor, extending the school day or year, and restructuring the school. 3 Alternative governance would involve any of the corrective actions identified in footnote 2, plus replacing all staff or contracting with a private education management company to run the school. 4 School Support Team: Senate Bill 389 (Chapter 422, Statutes of Nevada 2009) eliminates the requirement to establish a school support team for schools that have been designated as demonstrating need for improvement for three consecutive years. The measure authorizes the DOE to establish a school support team only for those schools where it is deemed necessary. 5 SEA = State Educational Agency, which is the DOE in Nevada. Source: Chapter 385 of NRS. 120

NCLB Annual Measurable Objectives School Year Elementary School Middle School High School ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math Baseline 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 27.5% 34.5% 37% 32% 73.5% 42.8% 39.6% 43.3% 39.6% 43.3% 77.9% 52.3% 51.7% 54.6% 51.7% 54.6% 82.3% 61.8% 2009-2010 2010-2011 63.8% 65.9% 63.8% 65.9% 86.7% 71.3% 2011-2012 75.9% 77.2% 75.9% 77.2% 91.1% 80.8% 2012-2013 88.0% 88.5% 88.0% 88.5% 95.5% 90.3% 2013-2014 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: DOE, 2009 Nevada State Improvement Plan. Note: Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) are a measurement used to determine compliance with the federal NCLB. States must develop annual AMOs that will determine if a school, district, or the state as a whole is making adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward the goal of having all students proficient in English language arts and mathematics by SY 2013-2014. The secret in education lies in respecting the student. Ralph Waldo Emerson 121

NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Nevada AYP Performance SY 2004-2005 to SY 2009-2010 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 Made AYP Statewide Did Not Make AYP AYP Results: A Breakout in Numbers of Schools and Programs AYP RESULTS Number of Schools SY 2006-2007 SY 2007-2008 SY 2008-2009 SY 2009-2010 ES MS HS NV ES MS HS NV ES MS HS NV ES MS HS NV 58% 21% 21% 100% 57% 22% 20% 100% 57% 21% 21% 100% 57% 21% 22% 100% AYP School Classification Made AYP 79% 58% 57% 70% 57% 60% 79% 62% 64% 49% 61% 59% 45% 37% 72% 49% Did Not 21% 42% 43% 30% 43% 40% 21% 38% 37% 51% 40% 41% 55% 63% 28% 51% Make AYP AYP School Designation Exemplary 5% 1% 2% 4% 1% 0% 2% 1% 0% 0% 6% 1% 0% 0% 5% 1% High Achieving 18% 13% 10% 15% 6% 7% 19% 9% 6% 7% 9% 7% 7% 1% 12% 7% Adequate 43% 33% 40% 40% 48% 39% 38% 44% 51% 36% 45% 47% 32% 31% 47% 35% Watch List 8% 13% 13% 10% 22% 17% 10% 18% 12% 14% 17% 14% 25% 20% 8% 20% In Need of Improvement 25% 40% 36% 30% 23% 37% 31% 28% 31% 43% 24% 32% 35% 48% 28% 36% Source: DOE, 2010. 122

NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (continued) AYP Results SY 2004-2005 1% 9% 29% 35% 27% Exemplary High Achieving Adequate Watch List In Need of Improvement AYP Results SY 2005-2006 3% 13% 35% 9% 41% Exemplary High Achieving Adequate Watch List In Need of Improvement Source: DOE, 2010. 123

NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (continued) AYP Results SY 2006-2007 30% 4% 15% 10% 40% Exemplary High Achieving Adequate Watch List In Need of Improvement AYP Results SY 2007-2008 1% 9% 28% 19% 44% Exemplary High Achieving Adequate Watch List In Need of Improvement Source: DOE, 2010. 124

NCLB Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (continued) AYP Results SY 2008-2009 1% 7% 32% 46% 14% Exemplary High Achieving Adequate Watch List In Need of Improvement AYP Results SY 2009-2010 1% 7% 36% 35% 20% Exemplary High Achieving Adequate Watch List In Need of Improvement Source: DOE, 2010. 125

Quality Counts State Report Card For 14 years, the Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center has conducted surveys of all states; findings are included in Education Week s Quality Counts. In Quality Counts, states are awarded overall letter grades based on their ratings across six areas of performance and policy: (1) chance for success (state data concerning family income, parent education, parental employment, linguistic integration, preschool enrollment, and kindergarten enrollment); (2) K through 12 achievement (state data concerning performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress); (3) standards, assessment and accountability (state data concerning state academic standards); (4) transitions and alignment (state data concerning early childhood education and college readiness.); (5) teaching profession (state data concerning initial licensure requirements and out-of-field teaching); and (6) school finance (state data concerning equity and spending). Quality Counts Overall Score Comparison for Western States 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 National Average: 2008 = 75.9, 2009 = 76.2, 2010 = 75.9 2008 2009 2010 YEAR OVERALL STATE GRADE Grade Total Score* Chance for Success Quality Counts: Nevada COMPONENTS OF THE OVERALL STATE GRADE K-12 Achievement Standards, Assessment, and Accountability Transitions and Alignment Teaching Profession School Finance 2010 D+ 68.7 D+ D- C+ D+ C- D 2009 D+ 68.8 D+ D- C+ D+ C- D 2008 D+ 69.4 D+ D- C+ D+ C- D+ *The total score is the average of scores across the six individual categories. Each category received equal weight in the overall grade. Source: Education Week s Quality Counts 2008, 2009, 2010. 126

Commission on Educational Excellence: Programs for Innovation and the Prevention of Remediation The 2005 Legislature, through the passage of S.B. 404 (Chapter 437, Statutes of Nevada), created the Commission on Educational Excellence (Commission) and the Account for Programs for Innovation and the Prevention of Remediation (Account) in the State General Fund. The Commission consists of nine members serving two-year terms, eight of which are appointed by the Governor with the remaining member being the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Commission is responsible for activities related to increasing student achievement including: Establishing grant requirements; Reviewing and approving grant fund requests; and Allocating money from the Account to the various schools and consortiums of schools. This Account supports remedial programs aimed at closing the achievement gap and encourages innovative programs to prevent the need for remediation. Note: The 2007 Legislature appropriated $79.3 million to the Account. Of this amount, $73.6 million was awarded to schools and consortiums of schools. Due to the economic downturn, in Fiscal Years 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, schools and consortiums of schools spent $38.4 million of these funds; the remaining funds were returned to the State due to budget reductions. For the 2009-2011 Biennium, due to the continued economic downturn, no funds were approved to continue the program. Source: Legislative Auditor, Audit Report, Programs for Innovation and the Prevention of Remediation, September 14, 2010 (Report No. LA10-20). You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can t tell him much. Anonymous 127

Full-Day Kindergarten According to the Education Commission of the States (ECS), 43 states require school districts to offer at least a half day of kindergarten. Only 14 states mandate that a pupil attend kindergarten. Although nine states require school districts to offer full-day kindergarten, only two Louisiana and West Virginia require full-day attendance. In Nevada, State-funded full-day kindergarten was approved, for the first time, by the 2005 Legislature. In Nevada, a school district is not required to offer full-day kindergarten and a family may request that its child attend for less than a full day. Funding Through the passage of Assembly Bill 4 (Chapter 3, Statutes of Nevada 2005, 22nd Special Session), the Legislature appropriated $22 million from the State General Fund to provide full-day kindergarten in certain schools in SY 2006-2007. The funds were utilized to implement full-day kindergarten in 114 at-risk schools across the State. These schools were determined to be at risk based upon a free and reduced-price lunch count of pupils of at least 55.1 percent of the student enrollment. The 2007 Legislature, through the passage of A.B. 627 (Chapter 343, Statutes of Nevada) appropriated $25.6 million in FY 2007-2008 to provide for the ongoing costs of the teachers in the 114 schools. For FY 2008-2009, $40.8 million was appropriated to expand the program to approximately 166 schools or to a free and reduced-price lunch count of pupils of at least 40.75 percent. However, due to the economic downturn, funding to expand the program was ultimately returned to the State General Fund. For the 2009-2011 Biennium, the Legislature approved approximately $51 million to support the ongoing cost of full-day kindergarten in the 114 schools. Research Clark County School District In a first-year longitudinal study by the Clark County School District (CCSD), the effects of participating in full-day kindergarten and half-day kindergarten on students literacy development was assessed. The report, titled Status Report on Year 1: Full-Extended-Day Kindergarten Study (Feds), found that lower socioeconomic students enrolled in full-day kindergarten demonstrated greater rates of literacy growth over the course of the year than the closely matched half-day students. In a follow-up report concerning findings from the longitudinal study, titled Full/Extended Day Kindergarten Longitudinal Study Effects of Full-Day Kindergarten in Subsequent Years: Third Grade (Feds-L3), the CCSD found that the positive effects of attending full-day kindergarten remain through third grade. It was found that students who attend full-day kindergarten continue to outperform students who attended half-day kindergarten in both reading and mathematics. The following summarizes the findings relating to student performance on the State s CRTs. 128

Full-Day Kindergarten (continued) State CRT Results Percent Proficient and Average Scale Scores (Mathematics and Reading) In both reading and mathematics, students who attended a full-day kindergarten program were more likely to be proficient on the State s third grade CRT than students who attended a half-day kindergarten program. State CRT Results for Third Grade Percent Proficient by Program CRT Average Score Half-Day Kindergarten Percent Proficient N Full-Day Kindergarten Percent Proficient Reading 47.88% N=79 59.20% N=103 Math 54.82% N=91 64.94% N=113 N Difference Between Full-Day and Half-Day +11.32% (Full-Day) +10.12% (Full-Day) In both reading and mathematics, students who attended a full-day kindergarten program, on average, outperformed students on the State s third grade CRT than students who attended a half-day kindergarten program. State CRT Results for Third Grade Average Scale Scores by Program CRT Average Score Half-Day Kindergarten Average Scale Score N Full-Day Kindergarten Average Scale Score Reading 297.59 N=165 305.48 N=174 Math 294.55 N=166 307.90 N=174 N Difference Between Full-Day and Half-Day +7.89 (Full-Day) +13.34 (Full-Day) Source: Clark County School District, Full/Extended Day Kindergarten Longitudinal Study Effects of Full-Day Kindergarten in Subsequent Years: Third Grade (Feds-L3), February 24, 2009. 129

Full-Day Kindergarten (continued) Washoe County School District In the Washoe County School District, findings from a 2007 pilot research project, titled A Statistical Analysis of Assessment Scores in Full-Day and Half-Day Kindergarten Students, found that full-day kindergarten students achieved higher mean scores in all English Language Arts (ELA) assessment categories for both an October 2006 administration and a January 2007 administration. In addition, increases in the January scores over the October scores were significantly higher in the full-day group. Other Research Concerning Full-Day Kindergarten For additional information concerning full-day kindergarten, please see the Research Brief on full-day kindergarten published by the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The document may be accessed at: http://leg.state.nv.us/division/research/publications/ ResearchBriefs/FullDayKindergarten.pdf/. When a subject becomes totally obsolete we make it a required course. Peter F. Drucker 130

Empowerment Program in Nevada Although funding for the State Empowerment Program was eliminated due to budget reductions, the Clark County School District (CCSD) has continued its empowerment schools through grants and school district general funds. The following provides a summary of the Empowerment Program in the CCSD. For additional information, please see the Research Brief on the Empowerment Schools Program in Nevada published by the Research Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. The document may be accessed at: http://leg.state.nv.us/division/research/publications/ ResearchBriefs/HistoryEmpowerment.pdf. Concept of Empowerment According to CCSD s 2010 Empowerment Overview, the concept of empowerment is anchored in the belief that, if schools are to be held accountable for student achievement, they should be given the freedom to determine what will best accomplish their goals and to deploy the resources that they have been allocated to implement their choices. According to the report, empowerment in the CCSD involves four elements: engagement, autonomy, resources, and accountability. 1. Engagement Empowerment schools operate on the belief that it takes a united effort to meet achievement standards and prepare students to participate in democracy. 2. Autonomy Governance: To create the most effective programs for students, each empowerment school creates a School Empowerment Team (SET) comprised of administrators, teachers, support staff, students, parents, and community members. Instruction: Empowerment schools select the instructional programs and materials, the assessment practices, and the schedules best suited to their students needs, within the parameters provided by the State of Nevada and CCSD. Staffing: Empowerment schools have the flexibility to set staffing patterns (types and number of positions and job descriptions) within the parameters set by contractual agreements and State law to create the best learning environment for students. Budget: Empowerment schools ensure that maximum dollars reach students in the classroom. 131

Empowerment Program in Nevada (continued) 3. Resources An additional per-pupil funding is provided to empowerment schools ($400 to $600 per pupil). Community partners have teamed with empowerment schools to provide additional support, including monetary support ($50,000 per year). The Lincy Foundation has also provided a grant of $13.5 million to assist with per-pupil funding over a three-year period (FY 2008-2009 through FY 2010-2011). 4. Accountability Outcomes are expected from the autonomy granted and money invested. Empowerment schools are required to: Make annual progress toward goals for student achievement and school environment. Expend resources within approved budget levels and in accordance with their Empowerment Plan and School Improvement Plan (SIP). Comply with all CCSD policies and regulations, all State and federal requirements, and all contractual and legal mandates, unless specific waivers have been granted. Reduce the achievement gap that exists among races and social classes. Empowerment Schools in the Clark County School District The CCSD currently has 30 Empowerment Schools, 23 elementary, 3 middle, and 4 high schools. 2006-2007 Clark County School District (CCSD) operates first 4 empowerment schools. 2007-2008 2007 Legislature approves laws governing empowerment schools. (NRS 386.700 to 386.780) CCSD operates 8 empowerment schools. 2008-2009 CCSD operates 14 empowerment schools. 2009-2010 CCSD operates 17 empowerment schools. 2010-2011 CCSD operates 30 empowerment schools. 132

Empowerment Program in Nevada (continued) Empowerment Results Clark County School District: SY 2007-2008 Student Performance: Empowerment schools have increased the percentage of proficient students in mathematics by 9.7 percent and in English Language Arts by 5.5 percent when compared to their pre-empowerment proficiency percentages. Percentage of Proficient Students 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% Student Performance on the State CRTs Pre-Empowerment and Post-Empowerment Results 50.8% ELA 56.3% 57.6% Math 67.3% Pre-Empowerment Post-Empowerment Parent Satisfaction: All empowerment schools received higher parent satisfaction scores on a district-wide parent satisfaction survey. Percentage of Positive Responses 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2007-2008 CCSD District-Wide Survey Results, Parent Satisfaction 75% 88% 85% 93% 91% 92% 95% 90% 86% 82% CCSD Empowerment Source: Clark County School District, Overview: Empowerment Schools 2008. 133

NCLB Supplemental Educational Services Under the NCLB, low-income families can enroll their child in supplemental educational services if their child attends a Title I school that has been designated as demonstrating need for improvement for more than one year. The term supplemental educational services refers to free extra academic help, such as tutoring or remedial instruction, that is provided to students in subjects such as reading, language arts, and math. This extra help can be provided before or after school, on weekends, or in the summer. Title I schools are required to set aside up to 20 percent of their total Title I formula distribution for the provision of supplemental educational services. Providers of supplemental educational services may include nonprofit entities, for-profit entities, local educational agencies, public schools, public charter schools, private schools, public or private institutions of higher education, and faith-based organizations. The following table presents the number of students served with supplemental educational services since SY 2004-2005. In many instances, several more students are eligible for services than are served. Some of the reasons why include: (1) after-school programs are already in place; (2) other federal programs provide similar services, such as 21st Century Community Learning Centers; and (3) providers refuse to serve rural/remote school districts. Number/Percentage of Students Served With Supplemental Educational Services SY 2004-2005 to SY 2009-2010 SY Number Served Number Eligible Percentage Served 2004-2005 1,976 10,877 18.2 2005-2006 3,748 33,608 11.2 2006-2007 4,863 31,265 15.6 2007-2008 5,002 29,702 16.8 2008-2009 6,376 35,486 18.0 2009-2010 8,284 35,236 23.5 TOTAL 30,249 176,174 17.2 Source: DOE, 2010. 134

Advanced Placement (AP) Examinations 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 32.9 32.0 Percent of Graduating Class Participating in AP During High School, Class of 2009 Western States 27.7 26.7 21.2 21.1 16.6 15.4 14.6 14.5 14.4 Percent of Graduating Class Earning a 3 or Higher on at Least One AP Examination During High School, Class of 2009 Western States 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 20.8 20.1 18.5 16.0 14.6 13.2 10.6 10.2 9.3 8.2 7.7 AP Scoring Interpretation 5 Extremely Well Qualified 4 Well Qualified 3 Qualified 2 Possibly Qualified 1 Not Qualified Source: The College Board, The 6th Annual AP Report to the Nation, February 10, 2010. 135

Advanced Placement (AP) Examinations (continued) 25,000 Nevada Eleventh and Twelfth Grade Students Taking AP Examinations 2001-2010 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Students 3,369 3,786 4,551 5,411 6,363 7,299 8,379 9,205 10,591 11,302 Exams 6,056 7,023 8,244 9,847 11,568 13,005 14,664 16,137 18,631 19,799 Percent of AP Examinations with Scores of 3 or Above, Nevada, 2001-2010 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 48.1 46.8 48.9 49.9 49.7 51.6 57.3 57.3 58.9 57.3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Source: The College Board, School Report of AP Examinations 2009-2010 (By State). 136

Educational Technology State Appropriations Educational Technology* State Appropriations $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $36,265,650 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,950,000 $9,950,000 $9,950,000 $10,780,000 $5,000,000 $4,200,000 $4,290,000 $0 1995-1997 Biennium 1997-1999 Biennium 1999-2001 Biennium 2001-2003 Biennium 2003-2005 Biennium 2005-2007 Biennium 2007-2009 Biennium 2009-2011 Biennium *Educational Technology may include funding for such items as infrastructure, support, high-quality content material, professional development, and pilot best practices programs. Source: Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Nevada Legislative Appropriations Report, Seventy-Fifth Legislature, Fiscal Years 2009-10 and 2010-11, October 2009. Note: Due to State budget considerations during the 2001-2003 Biennium, all but $500,000 of the $9.95 million appropriation was reverted to the State General Fund. Additionally, due to mandatory budget reductions during the 2007-2009 Biennium, all but $770,000 of the $10.78 million appropriation was reverted to the State General Fund. The aim of education should be to convert the mind into living fountain, and not a reservoir. John Mason 137

Educational Technology Technology Counts State Report Card For 12 years, the EPE Research Center has conducted surveys of all states; findings are included in Education Week s Technology Counts 2009. In Technology Counts, states are awarded overall letter grades based on their technology performance ratings across three areas of performance and policy: Access to Technology (2007-2008) Percentage of fourth and eighth grade students with access to computers. Use of Technology (2008-2009) State standards for students include technology; state tests students on technology; state has established a virtual school; and state offers computer-based assessments. Capacity to Use Technology (2008-2009) State standards for teachers and administrators include technology; requirements for initial licensure include technology coursework or a test; and state requires technology training or testing for recertification, or requires participation in technology-related professional development. The following table displays how Nevada and the western states performed in Technology Counts 2009: STATE Access Grade Access Percent PERFORMANCE RATINGS Use Grade Use Percent Capacity Grade Capacity Percent United States NR NR B 82.7 C+ 76.6 Arizona D- 62.0 A 100 C 72.7 California F 59.0 D+ 69.3 B- 79.5 Colorado D 65.0 D+ 69.3 C 72.7 Idaho C+ 78.5 A- 89.8 F 59.0 Montana B 83.5 D+ 69.3 F 59.0 Nevada D 64.5 D+ 69.3 F 59.0 New Mexico B 85.0 B- 79.5 B 86.3 Oregon F 59.0 A- 89.8 C 72.7 Utah D 63.0 A 100 F 59.0 Washington D+ 67.0 D+ 69.3 B- 79.5 Wyoming A 93.8 B- 79.5 D 65.8 Source: Education Week s Technology Counts 2009. 138